The trial court erred in ruling that an award made by the allegedly biased umpire in a dispute concerning the amount of covered loss under a commercial property insurance policy was not binding, as both parties' chosen appraisers—in addition to the umpire—expressly agreed to the award in writing.

An affirmative defense or immunity does not eliminate "fault" or cut off proximate cause, it only bars liability notwithstanding that the "fault" of the tortfeasor was a proximate cause of the injury in question.

The trial court properly denied the defendant's extraordinary motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, since he failed to show the essential requirement that the delay in obtaining the DNA identification evidence from gloves used during the crimes was not caused by a lack of due diligence.

Regardless of whether the plaintiffs read the insurance policy at issue, questions of fact remained as to their reliance on the defendant insurance agents' expertise in identifying and procuring adequate insurance for them.

The State's expert witness's testimony regarding the behavior of victims of "intimate partner violence" was clearly relevant to explain why a victim of such violence might recant in order to protect the abuser from prosecution.

The juvenile court erred in ruling that it could not take the juvenile's admission to charges of theft by receiving, theft by taking, fleeing a police officer and a firearms offense without his legal guardian being present, since DFACS, as a legal guardian, waived its right to be present and to be heard.